I believe the Xpro2 is not a huge seller for Fuji (compare to the x100 and xt2), but it was the first ICL camera it made and is a very important niche for Fuji.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
I would be happy if they did. I've been in the tropics for a year now and the Fuji X-T1 and X-100T are working flawlessly. Very happy with the cameras and Fuji lenses -the Leica M-E failed after less than 9 months...aggressive sensor corrosion. Lessons learned.
My Nikon D2H (also APS-C sensor) weighed in at over 38 oz w/o a battery. The H1 comes in at around 22oz. Even with the vertical battery grip, I doubt it weighs what my Nikons did.
Last edited:
Big Ursus
Well-known
I hope I'm not hauling this thread off track, but yes, the only camera I've ever had fail was a Leica M4. None of my Nikons ever played up, and I used them hard. In fact, even my Panasonic LX3 survived after I fell directly on top of it while taking a shot!
faris
Well-known
Is there a dedicated image thread for the XH-1. I couldn’t find it; except this one.
I bought a Fuji XH-1 recently. Although I have reservation about the x-trans re: certain subjects which I. Photograph, the XH-1 fits me and the Fuji lenses I have and use. IBIS is good for me.
Someone mentioned about camera failures. I have Nikon, Leica, Fuji fail on me at different times.
I live in a desert, temperatures inside a car parked outside without shade are extreme. Fine, powdered sand is ever present. My cameras have to deal with that. In winters, the temperature differential in the desert has to be experienced to appreciate.
Besides I have taken my cameras ( one at a time of course ) to heights of 6200 meters and deep .in the Arctic. Extremely humidity and heat. Salt water sprays.
In tropical and sub tropical. Jungles. In the Canadian north in winter.
For the most part my cameras have held up excellently.
I needed IBIS, for my aged and shaky hands. XH-1 is fit for my purpose.
Shortly one of my Fujis shall go up a famous mountain in the Russian Federation. My worry is the battery drain, not the snow!
Failed images are my fault alone.
I use cameras to make images, and any modern cam exceeds my photographic capabilities. All else is just excuses.
XH-1, test around the house.
I bought a Fuji XH-1 recently. Although I have reservation about the x-trans re: certain subjects which I. Photograph, the XH-1 fits me and the Fuji lenses I have and use. IBIS is good for me.
Someone mentioned about camera failures. I have Nikon, Leica, Fuji fail on me at different times.
I live in a desert, temperatures inside a car parked outside without shade are extreme. Fine, powdered sand is ever present. My cameras have to deal with that. In winters, the temperature differential in the desert has to be experienced to appreciate.
Besides I have taken my cameras ( one at a time of course ) to heights of 6200 meters and deep .in the Arctic. Extremely humidity and heat. Salt water sprays.
In tropical and sub tropical. Jungles. In the Canadian north in winter.
For the most part my cameras have held up excellently.
I needed IBIS, for my aged and shaky hands. XH-1 is fit for my purpose.
Shortly one of my Fujis shall go up a famous mountain in the Russian Federation. My worry is the battery drain, not the snow!
Failed images are my fault alone.
I use cameras to make images, and any modern cam exceeds my photographic capabilities. All else is just excuses.
XH-1, test around the house.
willie_901
Mentor
Battery drain is an issue. IBIS increases battery drain.
The battery grip adds size and weight. This is undesirable for travel. Unless you use video, it only keeps you from switching to a new battery at an inconvenient time. Its Swiss-Arca compatible base is convenient for tripod usage.
For about 18 months I charged two X-T1 batteries two to four times per week. I had very good experiences with OEM X100, X100T, X-Pro1, X-T1 and X-Pro 2 batteries. I had problems with third-party batteries.
A Watson Duo Charger can charge two batteries at once. Watson sells a dual-charger plate for Fujifilm batteries. The charge rates are computer controlled. The Watson also has a 2 A USB charging port. The older batteries, NP-W126, are not heat protected. The newer NP-W126S are heat protected which is important for 4K video use. I assume the Watson Duo plate for NP-W126 batteries works for the NP-W126S. I would not hesitate using the NP-W126 batteries unless I was doing video. But I'd probably buy NP-W126S batteries anyway even though I never use video.
The battery charging time is slow for both the OEM charger and the Watson Duo. The Watson Duo is larger than the OEM charger, which is not ideal for traveling. I guess picking up a second OEM charger might take up less packing space if you use short AC power cords.
You can charge one battery in-camera using a USB charger, This is also slow. I don't know if USB, in-camera charging is possible with three batteries (camera body, with grip attached). With the Watson Duo you could charge the in-camera battery vis USB and two more batteries with the charger. The OEM charger could charge a forth battery. This gives you four fresh batteries per day after an overnight charging session.
- Minimize LCD viewing
- Consider buying the vertical battery grip
- I carried five OEM batteries for the X-T1
- Consider using a Watson Duo charger
The battery grip adds size and weight. This is undesirable for travel. Unless you use video, it only keeps you from switching to a new battery at an inconvenient time. Its Swiss-Arca compatible base is convenient for tripod usage.
For about 18 months I charged two X-T1 batteries two to four times per week. I had very good experiences with OEM X100, X100T, X-Pro1, X-T1 and X-Pro 2 batteries. I had problems with third-party batteries.
A Watson Duo Charger can charge two batteries at once. Watson sells a dual-charger plate for Fujifilm batteries. The charge rates are computer controlled. The Watson also has a 2 A USB charging port. The older batteries, NP-W126, are not heat protected. The newer NP-W126S are heat protected which is important for 4K video use. I assume the Watson Duo plate for NP-W126 batteries works for the NP-W126S. I would not hesitate using the NP-W126 batteries unless I was doing video. But I'd probably buy NP-W126S batteries anyway even though I never use video.
The battery charging time is slow for both the OEM charger and the Watson Duo. The Watson Duo is larger than the OEM charger, which is not ideal for traveling. I guess picking up a second OEM charger might take up less packing space if you use short AC power cords.
You can charge one battery in-camera using a USB charger, This is also slow. I don't know if USB, in-camera charging is possible with three batteries (camera body, with grip attached). With the Watson Duo you could charge the in-camera battery vis USB and two more batteries with the charger. The OEM charger could charge a forth battery. This gives you four fresh batteries per day after an overnight charging session.
NickTrop
Mentor
This is all well and good. But in my (controversial) opinion, for still image quality, nothing beats full frame sensors and once you go FF you don't go back. Yes, the cameras are bigger but the additional heft is worth it for better overall IQ and low light capabilities. Would I get a Fuji (or Olympus, or whatever) as a walk around body? Maybe. But not at the prices typically charged. Not when I can get a used full frame camera -- Nikon or Canon, for around the same cost. All the new bells and whistles added to smaller sensor cameras don't move me. It's about IQ, and IQ is about sensor size.
faris
Well-known
No one would argue about a bigger sensor dimension generally giving a better IQ.
Not having used one, I can bet a MF camera would and should produce better IQ than a mft. Which is FF, btw, for its dimensions.
Having used 36x24mm FF for more years than I can remember, I prefer smaller carrying weight and bulk than my Nikons. My Leicas are less bulky but can become quite heavy.
Step in the Fuji and APS-C sensors. A very viable alternative for me with an IQ difference most would find hard to fault at reasonable wall hanging print sizes. If one really wants the benefits of DOF, then a 36x24mm sensor has only a small advantage over the current APS-C sensors. But the price one pays in terms of cost, bulk and weight is not worth it for me.
There are compromises to be made. I travel internationally a lot. Size, weight and bulk have to be juggled for an acceptable level of IQ. For me, APS- sensors with reasonably fast primes fit the bill. Of course, a Fuji 35/1.4 ( e.g. ) gathers the same amount of light as any 35/1.4 made for another specific sensor...by definition and in practice.
Not having used one, I can bet a MF camera would and should produce better IQ than a mft. Which is FF, btw, for its dimensions.
Having used 36x24mm FF for more years than I can remember, I prefer smaller carrying weight and bulk than my Nikons. My Leicas are less bulky but can become quite heavy.
Step in the Fuji and APS-C sensors. A very viable alternative for me with an IQ difference most would find hard to fault at reasonable wall hanging print sizes. If one really wants the benefits of DOF, then a 36x24mm sensor has only a small advantage over the current APS-C sensors. But the price one pays in terms of cost, bulk and weight is not worth it for me.
There are compromises to be made. I travel internationally a lot. Size, weight and bulk have to be juggled for an acceptable level of IQ. For me, APS- sensors with reasonably fast primes fit the bill. Of course, a Fuji 35/1.4 ( e.g. ) gathers the same amount of light as any 35/1.4 made for another specific sensor...by definition and in practice.
willie_901
Mentor
43.8 mm x 32.9 mm is full frame now
43.8 mm x 32.9 mm is full frame now
I would argue sensor area alone does not limit image quality. Image quality can be subjective or objective. Objective aspects include analog signal-to-noise ratio, dynamic range and DOF properties (usually subject isolation).
The sensor is only half the story. In terms of image quality the lens and sensor have to be considered together. I do not say this because of the lens' optical properties (even though they are important). The point is increasing the surface area of the lens can offset a decrease in sensor area.
Besides, if sensor area alone is determines IQ then people should skip 24 X 26 mm sensors and use the newer digital medium format cameras with 43.8 mm x 32.9 mm sensors.
43.8 mm x 32.9 mm is full frame now
I would argue sensor area alone does not limit image quality. Image quality can be subjective or objective. Objective aspects include analog signal-to-noise ratio, dynamic range and DOF properties (usually subject isolation).
The sensor is only half the story. In terms of image quality the lens and sensor have to be considered together. I do not say this because of the lens' optical properties (even though they are important). The point is increasing the surface area of the lens can offset a decrease in sensor area.
Besides, if sensor area alone is determines IQ then people should skip 24 X 26 mm sensors and use the newer digital medium format cameras with 43.8 mm x 32.9 mm sensors.
faris
Well-known
I shall still maintain that a bigger sensor size will give better IQ. ‘ alone ‘ or on its own is not something I suggested.
Whether an image made with whatever sensor size is to someone’s liking is a totally different matter.
One can have whatever sensor in their camera, but to start with it has to be pointed at something ( even with a closed lens cap ) and the shutter triggered by whatever means.
I thought such things were a given..amongst other few preliminaries to getting an image.
But such ‘ trivialities ‘ were not what I addressed but the question of sensor dimensions and no more.
Whether an image made with whatever sensor size is to someone’s liking is a totally different matter.
One can have whatever sensor in their camera, but to start with it has to be pointed at something ( even with a closed lens cap ) and the shutter triggered by whatever means.
I thought such things were a given..amongst other few preliminaries to getting an image.
But such ‘ trivialities ‘ were not what I addressed but the question of sensor dimensions and no more.
Archlich
Well-known
I feel fortunate to be liberated from the IQ myth. Better doesn't mean better.
All cameras are capable. Me not so yet.
All cameras are capable. Me not so yet.
I've been there and went back. I find modern APSC to be the best combination of quality, size, and price. Fuji to be specific.
cz23
-
Maybe for you, Nick. But I can't think of a single photograph that moves me that relies on IQ for its effectiveness. I'd rather look at HCB's landscapes than those of Ansel Adams.
John
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
faris
Well-known
A 100 MP MF ( as generally meaning to be larger than a 36x24mm and smaller than 4x5 inches ) by definition will have better definition and resolution than a smaller sized film or sensor. Arguing against that intrinsic quality is like arguing against the fact that the sun is a star. How big, young or old, the rate of its emissions etc.is different than the fact that it is a star. It shall always be considered a star by definition.
Now whether one prefers the images made by HCB or Ansley Adams, or one prefers to use the APS- format is, as I have mentioned previously, and shall continue to maintain is a totally different argument. Just as whether an APS-C sensor is more suitable to one is a personal decision. But it does not take away from the fact that a larger sensor inherently would produce better IQ if handled as well as from an APS-C sensor. Just a fact.
Now I personally think HCB fame is more due to his socio-economic condition and the benefits it bestowed on him than by any other criteria. Of course, he made some good images. But others have made much better images that move me than any of HCB’s contributions. Just my opinion. As valid as anyone else’s. As an example I do not find any one of HCB’s images hold a candle to the ‘ Migrant Mother’ by D.Lange.
Now whether one prefers the images made by HCB or Ansley Adams, or one prefers to use the APS- format is, as I have mentioned previously, and shall continue to maintain is a totally different argument. Just as whether an APS-C sensor is more suitable to one is a personal decision. But it does not take away from the fact that a larger sensor inherently would produce better IQ if handled as well as from an APS-C sensor. Just a fact.
Now I personally think HCB fame is more due to his socio-economic condition and the benefits it bestowed on him than by any other criteria. Of course, he made some good images. But others have made much better images that move me than any of HCB’s contributions. Just my opinion. As valid as anyone else’s. As an example I do not find any one of HCB’s images hold a candle to the ‘ Migrant Mother’ by D.Lange.
tbhv55
Well-known
+1........
But whose images looked like HCB's images before he made them? He was an innovator. It's easy to say you don't see the big deal about his images 70/80 years later...
He's not my favorite either, but his work is historically important to the medium.
faris
Well-known
Begs the question, how many others could afford Leicas and have access to high society during his time.
Fame due to socio-economic reasons, more so than his talent. Anything he did during his time was pushed by the marketing machine that was his high society friends.
Ansel Adams, on the contrary, created something for photographers. I learn much more from him than HCB. IMHO.
Take Salgado, as another example. The work reflects mastery of the subject matter and the art of photography. My opinion, of course. One can use the same equipment he used/uses. But very few photographer’s work impresses me as his.
p.s. check out J. Vermeer for the ' decisive moment '. Long before HCB.
Fame due to socio-economic reasons, more so than his talent. Anything he did during his time was pushed by the marketing machine that was his high society friends.
Ansel Adams, on the contrary, created something for photographers. I learn much more from him than HCB. IMHO.
Take Salgado, as another example. The work reflects mastery of the subject matter and the art of photography. My opinion, of course. One can use the same equipment he used/uses. But very few photographer’s work impresses me as his.
p.s. check out J. Vermeer for the ' decisive moment '. Long before HCB.
benlees
Well-known
Your criticism of HCB can be directed at most artists; it is wealth that drives art. Talent is important but is a small piece of the puzzle. This is the same for most pursuits.
Salgado suffers from making (and selling) pretty pictures of suffering; a criticism most photo journalist types get that successfully tread into the art world. Salgado himself was aware of this contradiction- one of the reasons he to moved to wildlife.
And so it goes...
faris
Well-known
Human suffering being brought to light also suffers from the criticisms that you mention. But I believe bringing the sufferings to light is better than not tackling them at all.
Re: HCB, I believe more credit is given to his work than he deserves. But that is just my opinion.
Re: Salgado...if no buyers, then he wouldn’t sell would he. And his wildlife photography is also exemplary.
Re: HCB, I believe more credit is given to his work than he deserves. But that is just my opinion.
Re: Salgado...if no buyers, then he wouldn’t sell would he. And his wildlife photography is also exemplary.